Landlord counsel tells appeals court that judgment is needed to set amounts before reinstatement

Nick Armitage, counsel for Palouse Family Apartments, told Division 3 that permitting tenants to determine reinstatement amounts without judicial involvement creates uncertainty and leaves landlords without procedural protections. "Our position is that 410 requires a court to do the work," Armitage said, urging the panel to read the statute in harmony with RCW 59.18.410(1) and to preserve the court's role in entering a judgment that establishes owed amounts.

Armitage described the case facts as illustrative of the problem: multiple pay-or-vacate notices and repeated late payments in a subsidized, low-income tax credit property create friction when tenants "self-execute" reinstatement. He told the court the tender at issue arrived after a writ had issued and that allowing self-help reinstatements could let a less scrupulous landlord proceed with eviction execution despite a purported tender. The panel pushed back, noting courts retain jurisdiction and disputes about sufficiency can be litigated; Armitage argued judicial determination before reinstatement provides clarity and avoids chaotic outcomes.

The article reports argument made to the panel; no opinion was rendered from the bench at submission.